384khz?

[The Black Adder]

Hi Paul, please post constructively to the thread.

[Rothchild]

Although 24/96 has become popular for recording I think we've got to remember that audio rates 'traditionally' are rooted it 44.1 with 48 being a more video format. This may well feed in to Josie finding 88.2 preferable, as the maths needed for sample rate conversion is trivial whereas moving between 44/88/176 - 48/96/192 takes a bit more arithmetic, which may include some rounding.

Personally I think you should stick to the rate of the file, all this upsampling stuff is stretching credibility. There are real practical reasons why using high sample rates is helpful in a recording and mixing context, and fair enough if that chain is maintained through to the master it wont hurt to listen to the master at the rate it was tracked at but upsampling, meh, you can't unbake a cake and you can't put stuff back in a mix that isn't there already.

[Macca]

Personally I think you should stick to the rate of the file, all this upsampling stuff is stretching credibility. There are real practical reasons why using high sample rates is helpful in a recording and mixing context, and fair enough if that chain is maintained through to the master it wont hurt to listen to the master at the rate it was tracked at but upsampling, meh, you can't unbake a cake and you can't put stuff back in a mix that isn't there already.

Yes, exactly. And even a recording in 24 bit is likely to have its dynamic range limited by the mastering if a commercial recording.

The idea that the problem with digital audio was with its frequency response and its dynamic range is an odd one, given it is very good at both, but it has caught hold.

[the_doc735]

Hi Paul, please post constructively to the thread.

just being polite and replying with acknowledgements

[walpurgis]

just being polite and replying with acknowledgements

Hmm.

[the_doc735]

Yes, exactly. And even a recording in 24 bit is likely to have its dynamic range limited by the mastering if a commercial recording.

The idea that the problem with digital audio was with its frequency response and its dynamic range is an odd one, given it is very good at both, but it has caught hold.

yes I agree with this thought.

[struth]

thread tidied up. No more silly posts please.

[Gazjam]

Dabbled in hires over the years, my thoughts are that *true* 24bit vs 16bit is the biggest improvement, and any samplerate over 96khz isn't worth the premium.
As always, subject to the mastering.
Some of the most edge of the seat 'wow you are there' recordings I have are are 320K MP3!

My Dac does up to 32/384 and when I used Jriver initially I upsampled everything to max out the Dac...bigger is better, right?
As always, not that simple!

Nowadays I run everything at native depth and samplerate and appreciate any 24/96 recordings I have.
But I dont't sweat it, 16/44 can sound wonderful and even 320K MP3 of a well mastered performance.

New version of Roon has software upsampling, so got curious and gave it a whirl again.
Naa...
Can hear a difference when upsampled, but doesn't make it sound better.
Less natural, particularly in the feeling of 'air' feeling forced or artificial.

My £0.02 worth?
24bit is cool, get that if you can and up to 96khz is all you will ever need.
Better to get our knickers in a twist about stuff other this!

[Jimbo]

Dabbled in hires over the years, my thoughts are that 24bit vs 16bit is the biggest improvement, and any samplerate over 96khz isn't worth the premium.
As always, subject to the mastering.
Some of the most edge of the seat 'wow you are there' recordings I have are are 320K MP3!

My Dac does up to 32/384 and when I used Jriver initially I upsampled everything to max out the Dac...bigger is better, right?
As always, not that simple!

Nowadays I run everything at native depth and samplerate and appreciate any 24/96 recordings I have.
But I dont't sweat it, 16/44 can sound wonderful and even 320K MP3 of a well mastered performance.

New version of Roon has software upsampling, so got curious and gave it a whirl again.
Naa...
Can hear a difference when upsampled, but doesn't make it sound better.
Less natural, particularly in the feeling of 'air' feeling forced or artificial.

My £0.02 worth?
24bit is cool, get that if you can and up to 96khz is all you will ever need.
Better to get our knickers in a twist about stuff other this!

I have similar thoughts and experience on this as you Gary. I agree sometimes 24bit can sound superior to 16bit but depending on mastering. Even MP3 can sound acceptable if the recording and mastering are implemented well. I have heard DSD sound completely flat and 24 bit recordings worse than 16bit even of the same material.

However I do agree if you knowa recording is well mastered in 24bit it would be worth the premium. The only advantage I have actually heard from 24 bit recordings is in the top end air and finer acoustic detail.

I have not heard MQA yet but suspect the very top end full MQA resolved recordings are probably slightly better or easier on the ear.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I agree 24 bit is very good, however only if side technologies are also deployed
otherwise the recording is always being limited by digitals limitations.

The White Paper here ftp://ftp.dbxpro.com/pub/pdfs/WhitePapers/Type IV.pdf
explores the benefits of extending the natural limitations of digital, whilst acknowledging and
working cooperatively with proven analog techniques.

Most ECM label recordings form a great basis to hear just how good present day recording can be.
Tord Gustavsen Simin Tander and Jarle Vespestad "What was said " ECM 2465 being a good example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ8tbk8qtf4 along with Jan Garbarek Rites https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHbW2mtwZKM

As no one has yet asked what mid 1980's product had a 644Khz sampling rate, alerted to in Post 2
it was the DBX 700 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dbx_Mo...udio_Processor

Cheers / Chris